From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263692AbTLJP7u (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Dec 2003 10:59:50 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263695AbTLJP7u (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Dec 2003 10:59:50 -0500 Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.86.99.235]:29596 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263692AbTLJP7r (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Dec 2003 10:59:47 -0500 Subject: Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause? From: David Woodhouse To: Larry McVoy Cc: Andre Hedrick , karim@opersys.com, Linus Torvalds , Kendall Bennett , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20031210151110.GA6896@work.bitmover.com> References: <1071066315.5712.344.camel@hades.cambridge.redhat.com> <20031210144612.GA19357@work.bitmover.com> <1071068703.5712.398.camel@hades.cambridge.redhat.com> <20031210151110.GA6896@work.bitmover.com> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1071071955.5712.428.camel@hades.cambridge.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.5 (1.4.5-8.dwmw2.1) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:59:15 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2003-12-10 at 07:11 -0800, Larry McVoy wrote: > You may license *your* work under whatever terms you want. Those terms > can't extend to things that aren't your work in a copyright license. Please elaborate. We're talking about a situation in which I grant a licence for you to copy and use my work, in exchange for something I desire from you. In the absence of a contract, this is limited to me effectively saying "You may copy and use my work if and only if you do XXX". If you do not do 'XXX' then you may not use my work. Are you saying that there are things which I may not ask for? Could you elaborate? Certainly criminal law prohibits me from actually inciting you to murder by really asking for the sacrifice of your first-born; I'll grant you that one. But what's wrong with postcardware, where I ask you to send me a postcard in exchange for permission to use my work? What's wrong with shareware, where you have permission to copy my work and use it for evaluation purposes, but you're asked to pay me if you continue to use it? What's wrong with a licence which requires you to bathe daily in creosote in order to receive my permission? What's wrong with a licence on my software which requires you to relinquish copyright on any musical score you ever write? What's wrong with a licence which requires you to release any unrelated software you ever write under the same licence? It may be increasingly unlikely that you'll _accept_ some of the above licences, but there's no fundamental problem with them. > You need a contract to do that and even then there are limits to what > you can do. I need a contract to force you to do anything; this is true. Without a contract, all I can do if you don't abide by my conditions is observe that you don't have my permission to copy my work, and hence that if you do so you are committing a criminal offence. -- dwmw2